~~~

A video overview 

Will Ross has produced an excellent video overview of the theory of REBT, which follows (copyright Will Ross):

Will's video is one of the best, most comprehensive video overviews of the ABCs of REBT. 

And now I will present an academic assignment of my own on REBT, which shows some further elaboration of the ABCs of rationality and irrationality, including further illustrative models; plus a couple of case examples of disturbances and how to correct them (using myself as the model); plus a description of the therapist-client relationship in REBT:

# Extract from Assignment 6 of my Rusland Diploma coursework, on REBT...

Most of the disputing questions presented above are particularly helpful in disputing 'demandingness' - as when the client holds absolute shoulds, absolute musts, etc. 

The emphasis on irrational beliefs in REBT shifted in the mid 1970s, from the idea that people mainly disturb themselves by 'awfulizing' - or exaggerating the degree of badness of the bad events in their lives - to demandingness (or 'musturbation' as Albert Ellis liked to call it!)

Somewhere in the early 1990s, Dr Tom Miller developed a method of measuring the degree of badness of noxious Activating Events (or 'A's).  I adapted that method for use with my own clients, and wrote about it in my booklet entitled 'Overcoming Fear and Anxiety'.  Here is a link to Appendix 'C' of that booklet:

# Using a numerical scale to assess the degree of badness of a noxious activating event: an extract on 'Disputing Awfulizing' in REBT...

If you want to go deeper into the philosophy of REBT, then why not read Albert Ellis's essay:

# The Essence of REBT, by Dr Albert Ellis***

If you want a detailed application of the GABCDE model, from beginning to end, applied to practical, everyday problems, then please take a look at:

# Who controls you? An article by Wayne Froggatt...***

And if you want a more detailed destription of how Dr Ellis and his acolytes did their assessment and teaching role in counselling contexts, then:

# Please take a look at this link to the relevant section of an REBT book, at Google Books...***

~~~

Second extract from my University of Manchester presentation

The structure of REBT sessions

Let me now present the PowerPoint presentation entitled Standard Structure for an REBT Therapy Session, which I presented on 16th November.  In this presentation, I use the example of a client from about five or six years ago, who had been expelled from a political party, and who was depressed about her loss and failure.  You will need to have your REBT Workbook, from above, before you begin to watch this presentation.

Standard Structure for an REBT Therapy Session by Dr Jim Byrne University of Manchester 16th November 2011

~~~ 

Further elaborations of REBT theory, by Dr Jim Byrne 

I now want to provide a more in-depth presentation of the theory of REBT.  Since it is an extensive theory, which has subtly different ways of dealing with different distressing emotions, I will stick to the example of REBT applied to anger management.  What follows is an extract from my latest paper on CENT; specifically the REBT contribution to anger management: 

Extract from CENT Paper No.11: 'Understanding anger in yourself and other people: What the experts say':

Dr Albert Ellis's most comprehensive book on anger was co-authored with Chip Tafrate, in 1998[1].  REBT is a very good and effective approach to anger management, in my experience, working as a counsellor/psychotherapist, where I have used it extensively for more than twelve years. (See also Ellis's earlier book on anger management from 1986[2], which emphasizes using logic and reason to combat the emotion of anger).

Dr Ellis's approach begins with the ABC model, which has three parts:

The ‘A' = Activating Event, (something unpleasant happens: such as frustration while driving on a busy street, or somebody keeps you waiting for a meeting in a public place);

The ‘B' = Belief, (which means you can either respond with a ‘rational'[3] or ‘irrational'[4] belief about this frustration); and:

C = Consequent emotions, (which will be anger if you adopt an irrational belief about that frustration, as defined in the footnote below).

In REBT theory, the C (Consequences) of a noxious activating event (at point A in the model) can be either an "unhealthy negative emotion" (like anger) or a "healthy negative emotion" (like irritation or annoyance".  (Ellis and Tafrate, 1998)[5].  Healthy negative emotions (which involve irritation and annoyance) are said to be caused by "rational beliefs" (which include preferential thinking); while unhealthy negative emotions (like anger) are said to be caused by"irrational beliefs" (like making absolute demands on one's self, others and/or the world).

# If you are a counselling student, and you need help with your academic studies, take a look at Jim Byrne's Academic Support and Coaching Service.***

# Or if you are a REBT/CBT therapist, you might be interested in my Supervision Service for Counsellors...***

The biggest offenders in the field of irrational beliefs are: absolute must's, should's, have to's, ought to's, got to's, need to's; or telling ourselves it's ‘awful, terrible, horrible, catastrophic'; or concluding that ‘I can't stand it/ bear it/ tolerate it'; and you (the person frustrating me) are ‘a rotten individual, a bad person, a louse, a worm, a bitch, a bastard;and so on.  (See Ellis and Tafrate, 1998, pages 40-43).  It might be that it is the element of ‘damnation' of the other person that most reliably triggers the emotion of anger. (Ellis and Dryden, 1999; page 21)[6].

~~~ 

Here is Part 1 of my own three part series on Deepening our Understanding of the ABCs of REBT:

~~~

Indeed, although REBT therapists and theorists mainly reduce the irrational beliefs to four[7]- which are: demandingness; awfulizing; low frustration tolerance; and condemning and damning of self, others and the world - there were originally about a dozen irrational beliefs listed in Ellis (1958, 1962)[8].  In Ellis (1994) eleven irrational beliefs occur[9].  Upon reading those eleven irrational beliefs, it might seem that number three is the best candidate for inducing anger.  It reads: "People absolutely must act considerately and fairly and they are damnable villains if they do not.  They are their bad acts".  However, many of the others could equally induce anger in an individual; for example, irrational belief number one says: "It is a dire necessity for adult humans to be loved or approved by virtually every significant other person in their community".  If somebody fails to approve of you, you could damn them, and make yourself angry at them.  (See chapter 4 of Ellis, 1994).

The main types of inferences[10] which most often trigger irrational beliefs which then directly cause anger are as follows:

(1) Frustration; as when somebody frustrates your goals or intentions.  Or they could frustrate you by not accepting, admiring or liking you as much as you believe they should.

(2) Transgression (or breaking) of your personal rules (by yourself or others); as when somebody does something you think should never be done.  An example could be, parking in your parking space; or not returning something they borrowed from you.

(3) Threats to your self-esteem or your personal domain; as when somebody openly and effectively criticizes you in front of your boss, your colleagues or your friends; or tries to invade your personal space or to take something that belongs to you.

So if you feel frustrated by the behaviour (or lack of action) of a significant other person, such as a partner, boss, employee, friend, etc., (or even a stranger, such as another driver blocking your exit on the street), you are likely to trigger an irrational belief about that frustration, which in turn will directly cause you to feel anger.  (In other words, the anger is not directly caused by what happens to you, but by what you tell yourself about that event!  Or, more accurately, what you tell yourself about your inferences about that event!)  And the most common irrational belief in this situation is probably that "They absolutely should not be blocking my goals in this way, and they are bad individuals for doing this".  Result, anger!

~~~

If you like this page, why not share it with your social networks? Click the button that follows:

 

 Thank you! :-)

~~~ 

~~~

There are very few publicly available audio or video recordings of Albert Ellis demonstrating REBT, but here is an example in which he works with Jeffrey Guterman over the telephone in the 1980s:

~~~

Here is a more detailed breakdown of the REBT model of anger causation:

Table 1: The Inferences That Trigger Anger-Inducing IBs

The main types of inferences which most often trigger the type of irrational beliefs which then directly cause anger are listed in box 3.1, in Appendix ‘C', and are as follows:

(1) Frustration;

(2) Self or other transgresses personal rule;

(3) Threat to self-esteem.

So if you feel frustrated by the behaviour (or lack of action) of a significant other person, such as a partner, boss, employee, friend, etc., (or even a stranger, such as another driver blocking your exit on the street), you are likely to trigger an irrational belief about that frustration, which in turn will directly cause you to feel anger.  (In other words, the anger is not caused by what happens to you, but by what you tell yourself about that event!  And what you tell yourself about your inferences about that event!)

The same effect will ensue if you or someone else transgresses one of your personal rules, and you happen to have irrational beliefs about that personal rule.

And finally, if you experience any event as a threat to your self-esteem, then you are likely to trigger any irrational belief you have about such threats, which will in turn directly cause you to feel angry.

# If you are a counselling student, and you need help with your academic studies, take a look at Jim Byrne's Academic Support and Coaching Service.***

# Or if you are a REBT/CBT therapist, you might be interested in my Supervision Service for Counsellors...***

The Same Inferences Can Trigger Rational Beliefs (RBs) and Irrational Beliefs (IBs)

Now the interesting thing here is this:  The same inferences which trigger your irrational beliefs will actually trigger rational beliefs if you have worked hard enough to eliminate your irrational beliefs.  That is to say, for example, if you dispute[11] your irrational beliefs about being frustrated, for a sufficiently long period of time, you will find that when you become frustrated in the future you will only feel (helpfully) irritated and annoyed; not angry.

It is therefore obvious that different consequences flow from the same inferences, depending on what your beliefs are: rational or irrational. 

For further detail on the REBT approach to anger management, please see Appendices ‘C', ‘D1' and ‘D2' attached.

Appendix ‘C' is a basic introduction to the ABCs of REBT applied to anger.

Appendix ‘D1' is an elaboration of the ideas contained in Appendix ‘C'.

And Appendix ‘D2' is a list of questions for ‘disputing' irrational beliefs that trigger angry responses.

Here is a very brief introduction to the kinds of questions used in debating, disputing and trying to change irrational beliefs, applied specifically to the inferences that are implicated in the causation of angry responses.  Fuller explanations can be found in the appendices specified below.

Disputing Irrational Beliefs

...continued on next page...

Ellis and Tafrate (1998) argue that people who act angrily may often be acting in response to a previous feeling, such as feelings of shame: (Ellis and Tafrate, 1998, page 68).  If somebody puts us down, we may first feel ashamed, and then want to hurt them (those bar-stewards) for having hurt us (which they "should not" have done). For this reason they advocate shame-attacking exercises.

They also point out that people may anger themselves because they suffer from "deep-seated feelings of unassertiveness" (page 68).  In other words, because they do not feel able to assert themselves reasonably with somebody who frustrates them, they then escalate their emotions to the level of anger, which may come out in the form of indirect aggression.  For this reason, they advocate self-assertion training for angry people.

REBT does not restrict itself to thinking strategies for avoiding anger. It also advocates (1) learning how to relax; (2) feeling your way out of an angry situation; (3) acting your way out of anger (which comes down to ‘forcing yourself to act differently than you feel'); and (4) additional miscellaneous ways to reduce your anger.

Firstly, regarding feeling your way out of anger, REBT recommends the use of Rational Emotive Imagery (REI).  This is how it works:

1. Close your eyes and imagine the noxious activating event, or ‘A' (Somebody has frustrated you; or insulted you; or broken one of your important personal rules).

2. Check on the ‘C' (Emotional consequence): How do you feel in your chest and your guts?  Are your fists clenched?  Is your body tense?  Is your face flushed?  Get in touch with all those feelings and sensations. Feel it as intensely as you can.

3. Now, without changing anything about the activating event (‘A'), change your emotional response (‘C') by calming your body and mind.

4. Now ask yourself, ‘Which of my anger-inducing irrational beliefs did I change in order to calm down?  Was it my demands; or my awfulizing; or condemning and damning the other person?  Or giving up the idea that ‘I cannot stand this?'

Secondly, I want to summarize the additional ways that are recommended by Ellis and Tafrate (1998) for reducing your anger.  This is my rendition of that list, with some augmentation by me:

# Learn to accept that you are "senselessly enraged" rather than "sensibly annoyed", and stop damning and accusing others.

# Recognize that some of the effect of your anger comes from outside, but that you can either minimize or maximize that outside irritant.  Choose to minimize it.

# Learn to accept that you can definitely control your angry feelings, and set out to do so.

# Recognize that anger and rage do more harm than good to you and your closest relatives and associates.

# Keep trying and trying to reduce your anger and rage.

Then:

# Review the practical results of your anger.  What is it costing you?  What are the benefits?  Is it worth it to you?

# Learn to expect frustrations and insults, and determine to be resistant to them.  Strengthen your frustration tolerance and laugh off insults.

# Identify and challenge any tendency towards narcissism and grandiosity in yourself.  "Much anger stems from childish grandiosity".

# Challenge your anger-inducing interpretations.  Do you think the other person is deliberately trying to frustrate you?  You may be wrong.  Were they deliberately trying to insult you?  Probably not.  Did they intend to be unfair?  You cannot know unless you assertively challenge their words/actions.  Then you might find out your interpretation of their motives was wrong all along.

# Work at reducing your feelings of inferiority and inadequacy.  This means working on your sense of self esteem, self respect and self confidence.

# Avoid drugs and alcohol.  It is very hard to be calm and rational once you take intoxicating drugs.  (The TA view is that the first part of you to be knocked out by alcohol is your Parent ego state,which includes your conscience!  The next part to go is your Adult ego state, which helps you reason and make logical decisions!  You are then left with the mind of a child and the body of an adult.  Not a great recipe for avoiding anger and rage!)

# Recognize that other people are imperfect and error-prone.  Do not expect them to behave perfectly.

# Reduce your self-righteous indignation.  What makes you so sure you are better than them?  Do you have any real evidence?  (CENT would say that you both have a Good Wolf and a Bad Wolf side to your nature and character.  Will your getting angry with them bring out their Good Wolf, or will it not merely entrench their Bad Wolf?  And how can you be so sure you are not, now, acting from Bad Wolf in your righteous indignation?)

# Recognize the irony of hatred, which is that you damage your own body and mind by your state of anger, and the ‘target' of your anger feels none of that.  Or, as somebody once said: "Resentment is like taking poison and waiting for the other person to die!"  Or, as the Buddha is said to have observed: Anger is like a hot coal that burns the person who throws it!

#Adopt humanistic values.  This is how Ellis and Tafrate (1998) describe this step: "To acquire a more humanistic philosophy, remember that you abhor needless mistreatment; that most people feel the same way; that concern for others tends to bring about the kind of conditions that you would like; and that treating others well in spite of their unfairness has challenging, self-growth elements.  Without being a Florence Nightingale or St. Francis, you can find real satisfaction in trying to make the world a little better a place in which to live.  Complete self-interest can become monotonous and boring.  A vital, absorbing interest in something outside yourself, as REBT has shown since its inception, adds to long-range happiness.  Devotion to a community or social cause helps you - as well as the human race". (Pages 140-141).

# Imagine how pained your opponents are going to be by your anger.  Have some pity for their feelings.  As Lao Tzu used to say: ‘Dealing with people is like cooking very small fish!  If you are not careful, you will break them!' Or at least damage them.  Inhibit your rage by thinking of the pain you will cause.

# If you want to have good relationships with others, you have not only got to give up making them wrong; you have to give up enraging yourself at them, and hurting them.

~~~

# If you are a counselling student, and you need help with your academic studies, take a look at Jim Byrne's Academic Support and Coaching Service.***

# Or if you are a REBT/CBT therapist, you might be interested in my Supervision Service for Counsellors...***

~~~ 

[1] Ellis, A. and Tafrate, R. (1998) How to Control Your Anger before it Controls You.  New York: Carol Publishing. 

[2] Ellis, A. (1986) Anger: How to Live With and Without It. New York: Citadel Press.

[3]As defined in REBT, a ‘rational belief' is one that takes this form: "I would prefer it if this person did not (frustrate me, or break my personal rules, etc); it's reasonably bad (say 10% bad) that they do; I can stand a 10% bad situation; and it does not make them a ‘wholly bad person' that they have (frustrated me, or broken my personal rules).

[4] Again, in the language of REBT, an ‘irrational belief' is one that takes the following form: "This event (frustration, breaking of personal rules, etc) must not be happening; its awful (meaning totally bad) that it is; I cannot stand such an outrage; and the person who is (frustrating me, or breaking my personal rules) should be condemned and damned as rotten and worthless!".

[5]Ellis, A. and Tafrate, R. (1998) How to Control Your Anger before it Controls You.  New York: Carol Publishing.  Chapter 4.

[6] Ellis, A. and Dryden, W. (1999) The Practice of REBT.  Second edition.  London: Free Association Press.

[7] Ellis and Tafrate (1998), page 52.

[8] Ellis, A. (1958). Rational Psychotherapy, Journal of General Psychology, 59, 35-49.  And:

Ellis A. (1962). Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy, New York, Carol Publishing.

[9] Ellis A. (1994). Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy, Revised Edition. New York, Carol Publishing.

[10] An inference is a conclusion.  However in REBT it is defined as a "non-evaluative" conclusion.  Beliefs are said to be evaluative.  Some REBT theorists concern themselves with the inferences that trigger rational or irrational beliefs.  In terms of REBT theory of anger causation, Ellis and Tafrate (1998) do not discuss such inferences.  Ellis and Dryden (1999) discuss inferences, but not specifically in relation to anger induction.  The anger-inducing inferences discussed in this book are described in pages 12 and 13 (including Table 1) of Dryden, W. (1999) Rational Emotive Behavioural Counselling in Action.  Second edition.  London: Sage.

[11]"Disputing irrational beliefs", as described in Appendices ‘B' and ‘C' of this book, means challenging the validity of a particular belief on the basis of asking: Is this belief logical?  Is it proven?  Is it self-helping?

~~~

If you like this page, why not share it with your social networks? Click the button that follows:

 

 Thank you! :-)

~~~ 

~~~

Here is Part 2 of my three part series on the ABCs of REBT:

Ellis also created: 

- The distinction between ego disturbances and discomfort disturbances, which can be helpful.

- The distinction that he made between ‘reasonably upset emotions’, like concern, sadness, irritation; and ‘overly upset emotions’, like anxiety, depression, anger, etc.

- His argument against self-esteem and in favour of self-acceptance.

- Like Werner Erhard, a generation after him, Ellis considered that ‘insight’ (so loved by Freud and his psychoanalytic followers) was the booby prize, and did not change anything much for the client/patient. (The CENT view says that insight without action is worthless; but action without insight is blind!)

- Instead, Ellis advocated the use of cognitive, emotive and behavioural techniques to help the client to talk themselves out of their problematic emotional and behavioural situations. The cognitive techniques involve asking questions about the logic, reasonableness and usefulness of particular beliefs/attitudes. The behavioural approaches involve desensitization by forcing yourself to behave differently than you feel. And the emotive approaches include ‘shame attacking exercises’ and ‘rational humorous songs’.

~~~

Here is an illustration of his Rational Humorous Songs, as I sing three of my favourites! :-)

We have now reviewed the simple ABC model of REBT.  However, the reality is more complex than is indicated by the simple model.  This was brought out in 1996, when Windy Dryden and Frank Bond challenged some core concepts of REBT.  In 2003, Dr Jim Byrne took on that challenge and produced a new review of the complex ABCs of REBT.***

See also my page on Common Misunderstandings of the ABCs of REBT - 'Blaming the Victim'... 

Ultimately, even though REBT is a very powerful therapeutic philosophy, like all human philosophies it has its weaknesses. These are explored in a paper entitled: Beyond REBT - The birth of CENT.***

I have also written a subsequent paper on 'Additional limitations of the ABCs of REBT'.***

And here is a link to a video clip in which I explore the distinction between 'moral shoulds' and other kinds of shoulds.  One of the biggest weaknesses of REBT is that it argued against all uses of 'demands'.  But moral demands (or prescriptions and proscriptions) are not only reasonable and justified - "You (morally) must not kill me, or harm me in any way!" - they are absolutely essential for the continuance of a civilized society. Take a look and see what you think:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDt8sXV5F4g

# For information about the nature of CENT counselling, please take a look at 'What is CENT?' 

# Or take a look at the CENT Publications outlet.